ixfr problem

Cricket Liu cricket at menandmice.com
Mon Oct 8 23:54:27 UTC 2001

> > I've never heard anything like that.  That would be completely non-
> > RFC compliant behavior, to say nothing of the fact that it wouldn't
> > generally work.
> Actually, it *does* generally work when the "preferred nameserver"s are
> MSDNS and the zone in question is "AD-integrated", because then all of
> are "multi-master"s capable of accepting updates to the zone.

By "generally," I meant "in the general case," not "usually."  It certainly
does not
work in the general case.

> As for RFC-compliance, the RFC leaves a pretty big loophole when it says
> a client can try the nameservers in order of "reachability" instead of
> unfailingly trying the SOA.MNAME nameserver first. It could be argued that
> the "preferred nameserver" can be assumed to be more "reachable" than
> nameservers, since after all the client relies on it for name resolution.

The RFC says a client can try *the authoritative name servers for the zone
updating* in order of reachability, not just any old name server.  I have no
qualms with an implementation that looks up the zone's NS RRs and then
looks to see whether one of those is the resolver's default name server to
determine reachability.


Men & Mice
DNS Software & Services

More information about the bind-users mailing list